WSP02917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D313?6 Furthermore, since there is no currently irrigated acreage in close proximity to these parcels, no economies of scale could be achieved by incorporating them into an existing operation. .Thus, a revised set of crop budgets for a 203 acre operation in the Piedra Watershed was developed. A 203 acre operation was modeled rather than a 204 acre operation because some rounding of acreage was necessary to simulate an appropriate rotation pattern for reseeding alfalfa fields. The details of the crop budget analysis for Parcels P5, P7 and P9 are described in Appendix B to this report. It should be noted that changes in the equipment complements used in the Level A economic analysis were made to reflect the smaller farm size. Also, 35 acres of Parcel S9 were assigned to native hay production, while the remaining acreage in the 3 parcels was assigned to alfalfa production. Inclusion of malt barley in the cropping rotation for such a small operation would not be economically feasible due to the small amount of acreage over which specialized equipment costs must be spread. The results of the revised crop budget analyses are given in the farm efficiency adjustment column of Table 5-1. The farm efficiency adjustment also reflects both the economies of scale and cropping pattern adjustments made for the Piedra Watershed. Since the effects of these two adjustments cannot be separated, they are reported as a single adjustment in Table 5-1. The results in Table 5-1 show that the cropping pattern and economy of scale adjustments, combined with the land clearing adjustments necessary to reflect the canopy cover on two of the three parcels, result in no parcels retaining positive residual repayment 8 .~,